Equal Rights versus Religious Rights

[tenni]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/twu-president-casts-law-school-debate-as-religious-freedom-issue/article18185317/


If a law school rejects candidates based on their sexual orientation, should graduates of such a school be permitted to practice law?


In BC, a law school is being created based on Christian Fundamentalists beliefs including discrimination bisexuals & gays by not permitting them to register is being created. Other law societies throughout Canada are considering the Charter of Rights and the two rights of freedom of religion versus equal right regardless of sexual orientation.

Ontario law society will not accept graduates of this new law school and Nova Scotia is restricting admittance. Graduates of this new law school will not be able to practice law in Ontario and have restrictions in Nova Scotia.

Your thoughts?

[Annika L]

What an interesting question.

Do we want bigots and/or supporters of bigotry practicing law? No, of course we don't. But bigots exist, and if they can't go to this school and get their Law degree, then they'll go to some other school and end up just as bigoted, but with a valid Law degree, and no pedigree that shows them to be a bigot.

Presumably, the education they'd get there would be as valid as at any other school, as long as they can pass their Bar exams (or the Canadian equivalent).

Will Ontario and Nova Scotia go further and try to root out bigotry in their lawyers in other ways? It sounds like the beginning of a witch-hunt to me...and I'm always sensitive about that kind of thing. ;)

[Hypersexual11]

There are several private schools of all grades around the US and probably Canada that have strict rules for admittance. Parents are interviewed and acceptance, depending on the school of course, is partially based on the parents beliefs. A private institution has every right to admit whomever they see fit. They don't see this rule as bigotry. They simply want to study and live with people that believe the way they do. In a religious community, bisexuality is pretty far out there. Since it's a law school, maybe it gets more attention, but it's no different.

I don't consider myself a bigot but I'm sure others would feel differently. An example is we are shopping for a house. When we first pull into the area of a potential house, I immediately start to "grade" the neighborhood. I won't live in a black neighborhood, nor a Hispanic, nor white trash. Hoarders, slobs, and weed collectors can have it. I will live in a white, nice, low crime rate area with strict rules as to how the neighborhood presents itself. There are some strong bigot traits there. I believe people have the right to live how they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with the way others want to live.

Do I hate black people because I don't want to live among them? Of course not. BUT..I am uncomfortable with the social traits they display. I'm too much of an uptight cracker to carry on a conversation with someone 3 houses down, in our own yards. And I don't want to sit in my house and be forced to listen to it. People want to be around people like them.

[tenni]

Annika
The BC government gave the law school permission to open knowing that they were going to be violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms equality section. The government decision is possibly open to a Supreme Court challenge of violating the Charter. So far, the law societies of two provinces are stating that there is precedence in law concerning the boundaries of religions and equality (in this case based on sexual orientation equality). The equality issue of sexual orientation has been firmly held by both provincial Supreme Courts and the Federal Supreme Court. The courts have so far suggested in their decisions that religious freedom basically ends at your nose. This is new territory but significant that law societies are stating that the law school's education will be insufficient as far as the Charter. It will be interesting how this comes down.

This is not a bigotry question as much as a legal question. Canada has same sex marriage with all equality based on the Charter of Rights. We have the two rights butting. I think that the law societies are not going to accept any person educated at this law school on the premise that they are not qualified in comprehending the legal issues of the Charter..not that they are bigots. They may or may not be bigots and that would be decided on a case by case scenario. It seems that they will not be allowed to write their bar examines to enter the Law Societies?

This wold be equal to an educational institution losing the right to have their graduates accepted in to societies as doctors or dentists. Reasons may vary but it has to do with qualifications and the school found to be offering inadequate education. I think? Of course, I have not explained this like a lawyer...cuz I'm not...lol

[elian]

Yes, this is sort of like several of the high profile court cases we have going on now that deal with contraceptives and the affordable care act. Should a private business be forced to provide condoms and birth control if the management of the company holds religious views prohibiting such devices? If I wear my Norm Chomsky hat I would say - "The usiness is privately owned and free to do what it likes, society is also free to decide not to use their services." ..but then I put on my pragmatist hat and say, "It's the law, get over it"

..then of course it was found out that a portion of the company's pension investments (whether they were aware of it or not) were going to fund the very things they were objecting to under the law. It inadvertantly casts a doubtt over whether they were objecting to the entire law or just the specific provisions..

It's funny how some businesses in this country would like corporations to be treated as "citiziens" with a "voice" and "rights" but yet when it comes time to be a good coporate citizen and give back to society they will do anything they can to minimze the impact on their bottom line.

As someone else mentioned, here there are a lot of private schools with strict admission requirements. So I say if it is only one school, le them do as they wish, as long as the entire bar isn't prejudiced ..

[darkeyes]

Think I'm pretty relaxed bout such things.. fact is religious rights are subservient 2 the law and are granted, quite rightly, by the elected representatives and governments of the state as representatives of the people.. all the people...at whatever level decided upon by the constitution.. and if they aren't they shud b! That isn't to decry the rights of religious people and institutions but is merely to recognise that those rights are secondary to the rights of all and are granted by the state.. this is an issue of accreditation.Tenni.. and it is the state which decides which educational institution is accredited and which is not, and until such times as accreditation is forthcoming, presumably once the institution in question has fallen into line with the wishes of the state, if it is not adhering to the rules and regulations put in place by the state for such institutions, then quite rightly, the state withholds accreditation... of course there will b legal wrangling and appeals, and maybe even arguments at the constitutional court, and it is quite right that these avenues are open.. for we all know that state, and its elected and non elected representatives make many mistakes and their should b avenue for redress and errors to be corrected.. however.. this does not alter the fact that religion... all religion is subservient to the people.. all the people.. and the law and constitution of the land... and that, luffly man, should never change, and it's about time that the religions and their more daffy followers, accepted it:)...

[darkeyes]

...make many mistakes and their should b avenue for redress and errors to be corrected.. ...oops.. slap hands'n face:eek2:.. 6 of best an' 100 lines 2 b in by Monday on pain of another 6, this time on bootie...ouchies:yikes2:.....

[tenni]

"There are several private schools of all grades around the US and probably Canada that have strict rules for admittance."

Hyper
I have been thinking about this sentence. Does your country permit strict rules for admittance to private schools based on race? on eye colour?

[Annika L]

I think that the law societies are not going to accept any person educated at this law school on the premise that they are not qualified in comprehending the legal issues of the Charter..not that they are bigots.

I find that argument ridiculous and disingenuous. It's a bit like saying that male surgeons (or at least surgeons *trained* by men) can't operate on a woman's reproductive tract because they are not qualified to comprehend how we work. There is *some* merit to that...but so little that it strains credulity to the breaking point and nobody has ever proposed it.

If the student passes their Bar exam, does that not *prove* that they understand the legal issues of the Charter? Surely the argument isn't that they won't waste the Bar's time examining such students, because they couldn't *possibly* understand these issues?

[tenni]

Annika
The law student needs training in the legal aspects of the Canadian constitution and in particular the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Christian Law School university is not going to be acknowledged as qualified to grant degrees that meet the criteria needed to take the bar exam to enter the law society of these provinces. I would guess that the position has to do with being taught false hoods.